Entertainment desk
< March 13	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 14[edit]

I'm looking for a game[edit]

It was a PC game from the early 2000's (May be wrong but I know it's old) There is a story where you are supposed to save creatures to rebuild their village. It was a match-3 game with rising blocks where a devil-like creature (of the same kind) was using a staff to spawn a row of blocks on the bottom. There are several creatures each level and a cage on the top of each one of them. If one of the creatures gets caught, you fail the level. You can save the creatures by removing all blocks under them and they have a different action when you do so (i.e. running forward and "colliding" with the screen, running right and falling, running left slapping the devil and running right, etc.) The blocks were rectangular and more wide than they are high. You are able to move around the blocks freely without needing a match, you can also "move blocks" from a higher column to a lower one by moving them to the lower column and making them fall. 38.103.157.165 (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This game might be found by looking at Category:Match_3_games and Category:Tile-matching_video_games. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at every single one of the games in the Puzzle games, Tile matching games and Match 3 games and it's not there. I definitely need someone that knows it because this is not the only place I have asked206.167.24.11 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why Rulers Worry About Money[edit]

In Chapter 11, page 184, of Polgara the Sorceress, it says: "Why is it that every ruler in the world spends all his time worrying about money?" Why does it ask this question?

Bonupton (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Eddings is fond of this kind of homespun philosophical musing through the mouths of his characters, particularly the ones who are 'sensible'. Here, he's presumably whimsically wondering why those with power don't spend more time worrying about their populations than worrying about money. It's a fairly silly argument, as if you run out of money, you end up being unable to feed people, as the North Koreans could tell you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think the author means the dictators are worrying about their own money, which is not used to better their peoples' lives in any shape or form. --Xuxl (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Eddings writes fun pageturners; he's not John Maynard Keynes. Although if he was, there'd be a lot more people reading economics books. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kleptocracy may be relevant. While leaders of most nations wouldn't go that far, they do have an amazing way of getting wealthier as their citizens get poorer. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All rulers, or at least all competent rulers, do spend a large amount of their time worrying about funding the expenses of government, which I believe has actually come as a surprise to many neophyte politicians. (Taxes are usually the primary but not the only form of funding.) While the purposes to which the monies raised may differ (corrupt politicians have corrupt purposes, honest politicians do not), the fund-raising process itself is not fundamentally different. John M Baker (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic debate

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Honest politicians??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that honest politicians don't exist, you ensure that they never will. You have to be willing and able to identify and reward honesty in politics. To refuse to do this is to work actively against honesty in the public sphere. John M Baker (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If we assume them to be honest, they can get away with dishonesty. If we assume them to be dishonest, and put in enough checks on them to counter this tendency, like Freedom of Information Acts, Abuse of authority laws with severe penalties, and whistleblower laws to protect those who turn them in, etc., then we can hopefully put in enough of a disincentive to dishonesty to get them to behave. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

And when this Utopian world finally arrives, will we then be able safely to assume politicians to be honest? Who will make that call? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Utopian ? What's Utopian about assuming the worst of politicians and taking actions to at least limit the damage they cause ? StuRat (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The subtlety of my point went whizzing past. Let me speak plainly, then. Putting in checks, disincentives, penalties and the like does not have to go hand-in-hand with negative assumptions. For example, we have laws and severe penalties against murder, but does this mean that people are generally assumed to be murderers? Or that anyone who hasn't killed anyone yet is believed to be just waiting for the right victim? Who's on your hit list, Stu? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

When it is possible to commit murder with no consequences, there are indeed far more murders committed, Rwanda being a recent example (and even there they had to know justice might eventually catch them). StuRat (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

That's nothing to do with the issue we're discussing: Whether or not to assume all politicians are dishonest. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

You asked "...does this mean that people are generally assumed to be murderers?". My answers is yes, we are all be assumed to be potential murderers, and thus we need to maintain a system where murderers are likely to be severely punished, in order to keep the number of murders down to a minimum. To continue your analogy with politicians, we should similarly maintain a system where corrupt politicians are likely to be severely punished, in order to keep the number of politicians who engage in corruption down to a minimum. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Politicians are essentially salesmen. So, as with salesmen, it's best to start out assuming they're dishonest, keep an eye on them, and see if they surprise you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Boy Slim[edit]

Can anyone answer my question about Norman Cook's name? See Talk:Norman_Cook#.22Fat_Boy_Slim.22. Please answer there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this NPR interview, Cook says: "It doesn't mean anything. I've told so many different lies over the years about it I can't actually remember the truth. It's just an oxymoron - a word that can't exist. It kind of suits me - it's kind of goofy and ironic." Tevildo (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love it, thanks. I'll add that to the article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lawrence Welk show once featured a rather rotund performer named "Tiny Little, Jr." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Biggie Smalls. StuRat (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackson 5 vs. The Jacksons[edit]

After reading the article Blame It on the Boogie, I've become confused. What's the difference between The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons? They're obviously related, but how? It appears Mick Jackson (singer) is a different person from Michael Jackson. Are the two related or connected in any way? JIP | Talk 20:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from the articles, The Jacksons = The Jackson 5, and Mick Jackson was never a member of that group and isn't a member of the Jackson family. He happens to have the same last name, and he wrote and recorded a song that was also recorded by The Jacksons. -- BenRG (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] There were 6 (American) Jackson brothers (and some sisters). The eldest three brothers formed a singing group called (surprise!) The Jackson Brothers.

When two of their younger brothers (including Michael Jackson) became old enough, the joined the group, which was renamed The Jackson 5.

Later one of the original 3 (Jermaine) went solo, and the remaining 4, joined by the 6th brother, signed with a different record label and were re-named The Jacksons. (It's actually a little more complicated than that, but it's all fully explained in the Jackson 5 article you linked above – see the diagram at the bottom of it.)

Mick (Michael George) Jackson is an English singer/songwriter (possibly born and certainly later resident in Germany), who co-wrote Blame it on the Boogie. It's nothing more that an amusing coincidence that shortly after he released it himself, it was bought by the management of The Jacksons and recorded by them. Although our article on him doesn't contain a photo, googling "Mick Jackson (singer)" readily reveals that he is of conventional white European appearance, whereas the American Jackson family are not (despite Michael Jackson's later efforts :-)), so a familial relationship seems unlikely. The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Jackson was certainly born. DuncanHill (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's possible that the Jackson 5 family name came from slave days, when their ancestor(s) was owned by somebody named Jackson, who might have been related to Mick Jackson. And, since slave owners impregnating slaves was not unknown, they might even be distant blood relatives. However, "Jackson" is such a common name, that any relationship seems unlikely. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the bands were related. But who is it that sings the Jacksons' version of "Blame It on the Boogie"? Is it the famous Michael Jackson himself, before he went on a solo career? Or is it this English Mick Jackson fellow? JIP | Talk 22:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not Mick Jackson! Note that both Michael and Jermaine Jackson released some of theiir solo records in parallel with their membership of The Jackson 5 / The Jacksons – it wasn't mutually exclusive. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Jackson wrote the song.

One version was released by "The Jacksons", with Michael Jackson as lead singer.

Another version was released by Mick Jackson. No relation.

In the UK, those two records were both released in August 1978, resulting in a "Battle of the ~~Boogy~~Boogie" between the two. That's covered in the article, "Blame It on the Boogie". 81.108.18.234 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they have been battling over a boogy, when the song was about the boogie? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, sorry, typo. Fixed. 81.108.18.234 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]